Master Plan to regenerate the town How could anyone vote against it..........

[mk1]

The faithful are getting worried.

Culled from today's Mail.

IN a couple of weeks' time councillors will be asked to vote on the transfer of Victoria Park to Hartlepool United FC.
Before you cast that vote just have a think.
It's not only about that part of it,  the vote will decide if the Mill House   area is regenerated and tidied up.  Many partners have come forward  (colleges, Gus Robinson, Camerons) to say they want to be involved with it.
Do you want to say "no" to that type of investment? New student accommodation, the leisure centre having money invest- ed into it to smarten it up and take it forward for the next couple of decades at the least.
The Odeon purchased and an eye-sore finally taken out of sight.
This is what you're turning down if you vote against this plan.
But just remember, if you vote "no" you're saying you want the Odeon to stand in its current state.
You may be voting in a few years to come for the closure of the leisure centre (will Hartlepool Borough Council have the finances to keep it open?).
If it closes down in years to come not one councillor who votes "no" can blame whatever government is in power when you need to make more cuts and the leisure centre has  to be closed.
It will be your fault for refusing this opportunity to make sure it's there in years to come and therefore the services the people of the town use remain here.
Do you want to be part of a council that closes down more services within the town?
If your  answer to that is no then you have to vote for this plan for the Mill House area. 
lf you vote against it  then l, for one, will remind you in years to come that you, as a council, signed its death warrant and not any government.
Do you want the colleges to attract more students and therefore bring more money into the town and local businesses?
If yes then you have to vote for this plan.
   If not then you may well be putting more people within the town on the unemployment figures.
Do you want that?
Put your party allegiances to one side.
You were elected to serve the town, not a party
. A "yes" vote shows that you're committed to doing what is best for the town.
It's your choice so think it over strongly. But you know at the end of the day you have to give this plan your support.     

[mk1]

I forgot to add it is from the letters page.

[Stig of the Seaton Dump]

What a ridiculously loaded statement. It is shameless and blinkered. What about the potential negatives, Mill House pool is currently a great community asset, will it go the way of the Studio and become another trendy student facility that Joe public is not quite posh enough to feel comfortable in. The ODEON is a monument  to our picture house past, it will be criminal if the building is lost and becomes another set of sticky tape houses with a Greggs and a Ladbrokes taped onto the end of it. The cinema was built as a vision to entertain our nation, the pool a facility for the common man and child. This era will go down in history as the one where nobody valued anything but capitalist greed and cherished nothing but a life of fake embellishment .

[mk1]

RC from Ashgrove Avenue

[mk1]

He did but I don't want to use it-he never asked for it to be posted here!

[mk1]

There is a reference to it on The Bunker that reveals his posting ID- 'Fetish'

[Straight Talking]

IN a couple of weeks' time councillors will be asked to vote on the transfer of Victoria Park to Hartlepool United FC.

If the transfer takes place, the Transfer may be to HUFC - but ownership will be with IOR

Before you cast that vote just have a think.
It's not only about that part of it,  the vote will decide if the Mill House   area is regenerated and tidied up.  Many partners have come forward  (colleges, Gus Robinson, Camerons) to say they want to be involved with it.

Many Partners, Gus Robinson - the company is the preferred bidder to bring to fruition whatever is decided - Stands to make quite a bit of profit from it - cos thats what businesses do.


Do you want to say "no" to that type of investment? New student accommodation, the leisure centre having money invest- ed into it to smarten it up and take it forward for the next couple of decades at the least.

By wrapping everything in together, it makes it more difficult to take a cold, balanced look at parts of the bid. So undoubtedly some parts that would not in themselves get support may do. Only time will tell if this is for good or bad. Either way it will be too late, because a decision will have been made.

The Odeon purchased and an eye-sore finally taken out of sight.

The Wilki's given a large piece of public money to buy them off, when they should have been prosecuted for leaving the Odeon to cause so much distress to so many people living around it, for so many years. The Seaton Development Plan proposes something similar.

This is what you're turning down if you vote against this plan.

But just remember, if you vote "no" you're saying you want the Odeon to stand in its current state.

NOT TRUE - The owners of the Odeon should be prosecuted and the building taken into public ownership so that it can either be demolished or renovated.

You may be voting in a few years to come for the closure of the leisure centre (will Hartlepool Borough Council have the finances to keep it open?).

The Council may be voting to close more than the leisure centre, so whats the difference?

If it closes down in years to come not one councillor who votes "no" can blame whatever government is in power when you need to make more cuts and the leisure centre has  to be closed.

Again NOT TRUE - until a decision is taken there is no way of knowing whether it proves to be right or wrong

It will be your fault for refusing this opportunity to make sure it's there in years to come and therefore the services the people of the town use remain here.

No Guarantees either way, if the facilities are built, will the people of the town use them? Will they be able to afford to use them? No crystal ball

Do you want to be part of a council that closes down more services within the town?

If your  answer to that is no then you have to vote for this plan for the Mill House area.

NOT SO SIMPLE

lf you vote against it  then l, for one, will remind you in years to come that you, as a council, signed its death warrant and not any government.

Is this the death warrant for the "development plan" or the club?

Do you want the colleges to attract more students and therefore bring more money into the town and local businesses?

Of course, but one does not necessarily rely on the other!

If yes then you have to vote for this plan.
If not then you may well be putting more people within the town on the unemployment figures.
Do you want that?

If the Council does agree, they might still be putting people on the dole, starting with those currently employed by the Club, when IOR sell the ground and move on, money in pocket
Oh to live in such a simplistic world

Put your party allegiances to one side.
You were elected to serve the town, not a party

You should be ashamed of yourself, its not that many years ago, you were one of the front campaigners to retain firefighters right to free dental treatment, the people you are attacking were those who stood alongside you on the picket line. For those who didn't understand the argument then and probably don't understand the argument now. "A firefighter cannot hold the mouthpiece on breathing apparatus safely when wearing dentures."

A "yes" vote shows that you're committed to doing what is best for the town.

Commitment to the town, is not the same thing as commitment to the club, or IOR. You have obviously been "blinded by the light" and need to have a rest in a darkened room.

It's your choice so think it over strongly. But you know at the end of the day you have to give this plan your support.   

I make no assumptions either way. What I do know is, there is no room on Brinkburn Field for a football club.
If IOR pull out, sell up, raise money against what would then be their asset and ultimately default, the club, the land and the ground are all gone.

WHO WILL YOU BLAME THEN?

[Inspector Knacker]

So it's a 'no' from the Labour party?

[Straight Talking]

Again, despite complimenting me on the post, you then accompanied by others jump in an make assumptions again.

At no point in my post have I said that I speak on behalf of anyone other than myself.

Also at no point have I said I am for or against the proposal.

What I have done, is to flag up a number of issues that would need to be discussed and resolved before anyone holds their hand up to vote in either direction.

[Donkey Kong]

If not then you may well be putting more people within the town on the unemployment figures.
Do you want that?

If the Council does agree, they might still be putting people on the dole, starting with those currently employed by the Club, when IOR sell the ground and move on, money in pocket

So, you either haven't read the report or, if you have, are choosing to ignore certain parts of it in order to try and make a point which suits you?  Which do we think it is? 

The report says that, should the plan be approved, HBC would have first option to buy back the ground and land for ZERO consideration, i.e. they would get it back FOR NOWT if HUFC / IOR ever wanted rid of it.  Yet you still make claims that they could sell up and pocket a wad of cash.

Why does EVERYBODY who is set against this plan for whatever reason they want (probably personal reasons with regards not liking the mayor or hating football) ignore this part.  Surely the only reason is because it doesn't suit their argument?

[Straight Talking]

If not then you may well be putting more people within the town on the unemployment figures.
Do you want that?

If the Council does agree, they might still be putting people on the dole, starting with those currently employed by the Club, when IOR sell the ground and move on, money in pocket

So, you either haven't read the report or, if you have, are choosing to ignore certain parts of it in order to try and make a point which suits you?  Which do we think it is? 

The report says that, should the plan be approved, HBC would have first option to buy back the ground and land for ZERO consideration, i.e. they would get it back FOR NOWT if HUFC / IOR ever wanted rid of it.  Yet you still make claims that they could sell up and pocket a wad of cash.

Why does EVERYBODY who is set against this plan for whatever reason they want (probably personal reasons with regards not liking the mayor or hating football) ignore this part.  Surely the only reason is because it doesn't suit their argument?

I could say the same thing, you are selective in which bits of the report you give weight too.

1. I don't hate the Mayor
2. I do like football

Once an asset is on the balance sheet of a company, it is traded, borrowed against etc. Whilst the intentions are clear, they may not be enforceable. If IOR uses the ground to raise money, for some other part of their company, which then fails, would we know about it until it was too late?

Sceptical I might be - biased I am not.

[Donkey Kong]

Once an asset is on the balance sheet of a company, it is traded, borrowed against etc. Whilst the intentions are clear, they may not be enforceable. If IOR uses the ground to raise money, for some other part of their company, which then fails, would we know about it until it was too late?

I'm not a legal expert, but couldn't this be countered by HBC having first charge against the land in line with the buyback option?

[Micksmate]

Can anyone please explain what this master plan is, apart from the ground itself what other part of the area do IOR want, who else is involved, what is going to be built, where is the money coming from, Gus Robinson is the preferred builder/developer, as above what are they going to build, who is going to pay for it?  Was there not a time when IOR offered to buy the ground but were turned down by the council, so why should we now give them the land? 

Is this going to be pie in the sky again, like the bridge to the Headland, the Waterworld on the marina, the War Museum, the cruise ships coming in and berthing next to a scrap yard, does anyone actually know or is everyone just jumping on the bandwagon guessing game. 

[Donkey Kong]

Can anyone please explain what this master plan is, apart from the ground itself what other part of the area do IOR want...

A tiny slither of land around the edge of the ground is all that the football club want over and above the existing footprint of the ground. 

The rest of the land in the area transfers to GRD and is nothing to do with the football club.  Too many people seem to be either completely missing this point or choosing to ignore it in an attempt to make the discussion / argument completely about HUFC getting a whopping great big free gift off HBC which isn't actually the case.  The plans for the redevelopment of the leisure centre, the housing, student accommodation and potential commercial units are absolutely nothing to do with HUFC and wouldn't be provided by them.

The report and the plans can be seen in the other thread about this where I posted a link to them (a thread called something like "best £500 Ken ever spent".  I really really wish that every bugger commenting on false premises would actually read the bloody thing!

[Donkey Kong]

Was there not a time when IOR offered to buy the ground but were turned down by the council, so why should we now give them the land?   

Although it says transfer for zero consideration there would be a sum of £100k payable by HUFC to HBC so it's not technically a case of "give them the land".